Bacon eaters! Do you see?

Indeed. Thus your "ignore God's Law" argument seems to have failed.

How is it then that Deut 22 could in any way help you make an actual Bible argument to the contrary?

In Matt 22 Christ quotes Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 as being the foundation for all of God's Word - all of the Law and the prophets.

You appear to claim that all of scripture was deleted and replaced by Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 so that the Acts 17:11 "sola scriptura" method seen in practice "Studying the scrptures to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so" is made void.

Why go after the sola-scriptura method just now DHK after you have upheld it in previous discussions?

In 1Cor 6 Paul said that your body is the temple of God - and God would destroy those who destroy that temple.

Thus God's command not to eat rats, cats and mice -- which you claim is a doctrine of a demon - cannot be "bent" the way you appear to hope.

Have you considered that point - so far?

in Christ,

Bob

 

Is it your wild claim that I can take any hear-say I have ever heard from any baptist in my entire life - and accuse all baptists here of such statements - no quotes, no information just random accusation in my posts?

If so - is that a skill you develop over time - or did it suddenly come to you as you looked at the cat and rat sandwich subject?

Curious minds want to know.
:jesus:

in Christ,

Bob

 

In your efforts to bend and wrench the discussion such that anyone eating a rat sandwich is considered to be "lost" by someone you imagined - I already gave this answer

You then proposed an "I don't care what God says - I will do what I want anyway" scenario (something Catholics typically do NOT do in their worship using images and something that most people here do not claim to do) -- and I responded

You then confirmed your own view that eating rat sandwiches is "an act of rebellion" -

So then I took your "that Bible is NOT the Gospel" idea and showed your error

In your recent post - you pretend as if this conclusion is helping you with the wild accusation that SDAs do not sin and that those who eat rat sandwiches are all said to be lost by SDAs. A direct contradiction of my "only God knows the state of the soul" arguments in that other thread.

Again - your efforts to bend and wrench what was said to your usages is more than a little impressive.

in Christ,

Bob

 

To which I replied

And then you make the extreme bend-and-wrench claim about the OP statement of yours -

Sorry Steaver - you did not quote me in that OP. In fact my argument made dozens of times on that other thread (as you very well know) is that no one can judge another and that God alone knows the state of a person who is not keeping some part of His Word.

I gave you the example of Catholics that use images in worship and pointed out that even though this is not in accordance with God's Word - the 2nd Commandment - it does not mean that all Catholics are not saved. I showed the James 4 principle "to him that KNOWS to do right and does it not TO HIM it is sin".

You whined and complained almost non-stop that I refuse to flatly condemn all Christians if in any case they were not keeping God's Law.

Now you completely fabricate your own "story" in the OP and hope to pin it on me?

Your methods here have been far more transparent that you might have at first imagined.

again - is this a skill you learn over time??

Help us know just how to avoid learning to do such a thing.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The Apostle John writes -


Quote:
Originally Posted by Apostle John
1John 2
3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4 The one who says, "" I have come to know Him,'' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.


And Steaver immediately complains...

Take it up with scripture -- you have chosen to place yourself in opposition to the sola-scriptura position merely by reason of "complaint".

Feel free to explain why you are addressing me as if I wrote 1 John 2 - instead of phrasing your question "GODS' WORD says we are liars if we claim to know Christ and yet do not keep His Commandments".

A+ on Ranting.

F- on actual Bible exegesis so far.

(Just trying to help you focus)

While it is wonderful that they "include" a great many things.

The text specifically says to "WALK as Jesus WALKED" (hint we don't see him doing a lot of "confessing" so the focus IN THE TEXT is NOT primarily about the issue of confessing but rather - walking in obedience.

1John 2
3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4 The one who says, "" I have come to know Him,'' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

Also notice that John writing in 1John 2 about Christ's commandments - is the same person writing in John 14:15 "If you Love Me KEEP My Commandments" - pre cross.

Thus CHRISTIANS are to KEEP those commandments.

But recall that this "YOU SAY we must..." argument is being made as you announce that we can NOT KEEP God's Commandments.

You have yet to address the context of your own spin.

Correction. John does not say "I write these things because you MUST SIN". He said "I write these things that you SIN NOT". Which flatly contradicts your own argument that born-again saints MUST sin.

Furthermore John adds "AND IF anyone DOES sin" not as the primary model for Christians to be helplessly enslaved to sin - as you seem to imagine.

You have spun the text on its head to say something like "YOU MUST sin therefore I command you to CONFESS and that is the only Commandment that Christ even has" - which is total nonsense.

There is NO TEXT IN ALL OF SCRIPTURE - where Jesus said "my only commandment is for you to confess your non-stop sinning - and then go on sinning".

Sorry to have to conclude - that your efforts to spin 1John 2 - failed at the very start.

Recall that John speaks of the saints "keeping the Commandments" of Christ in 1John 2 - and in Rev 12 and Rev 14 he shows the saints "KEEPING the Commandments of God" - because as it turns out - John 1:1-4 John actually thinks Christ IS GOD.

And of course - :godisgood:

in Christ,

Bob

 

Because it is a part of the (as is Lev.11).
Lev. 11 is a part of the law which you keep. Deut. 22 is a law which you ignore or refuse to keep. You are a hypocrite in that you choose to pick parts of the law--the ones you want to obey, and the others you want to ignore or disobey.

Why do you ignore my questions?
How would the law be obeyed by the Israelites?
How would the law be obeyed today if applied in a practical way?

And does he quote specifically the dietary law? No. Thus your hypocrisy is still showing.

You ignore Deut.22:11 to your sola scriptura. It is just as valid as Lev.11. If you include other Pauline epistles you find that the law is abolished, nailed to the cross, is valid no more except as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. We are no longer under the law--which includes the dietary law.

I have never left it. You have. And I believe you have left it because you have been influenced by the writings of the Ellen G. White, even though you will not admit it.

Pork is one of the safest foods in the nation to eat. If you really believed what you just posted you would stay away from sugar, salt, "junk food," saturated fats, most processed foods, etc. Do you live like that? Do you live on a farm and eat of the produce thereof? Do you practice what you preach? Pork, that is sold in the stores, is one of the safest and healthiest meats on the market, safer and healthier even then red meat such as ground beef.

I hope that God would call you to be a missionary to Thailand where cat or dog would be regular fare. Paul said

1 Corinthians 9:21-22 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

But you would disobey that command if God called you to Thailand, and would not be able to win souls in that nation. You would not be able to become "like the Thais that you might gain the Thais that you might by all means save some."
That is the meaning of the verse even if it means eating cat and dog. It is not the cat and dog that is unclean.

Mark 7:18-23 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Have you considered the above point so far. I think not!!

 

Sadly - you provided no quote at all from me that matched you wild claims in your wild claims in the OP.

Care to have another go at it - or do you want me to copy even more of my quotes from that other thread that flatly contradict your OP?

I do have more you know.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I certainly agree that your OP needs to sweep this position that I took repeatedly on that other thread - under the rug - hoping the readers here will never see it - and then compare that position to the wild claims you make in your OP here.

Finally - you have taken a position that does make some sense.

How is that working for you BTW? Trying to misdirect your readers away from the information that I keep quoting from the thread that directly refutes your claims here?

Indeed - only God knows individual cases.

You have repeatedly tried to place yourself in the worst possible position claiming to be in open rebellion against God's Word. I keep saying that I doubt your condition is as dire as you claim.

Sadly - your efforts to continually misdirect and misrepresent the details of the discussion will mean that I simply have to post here - the same thing I posted there about my not believing that your condition is as hopeless as you pretend for the sake of your position on eating rats and diseased animal flesh.

I realize you think you are doing some kind of exegesis into 1John 2. But allow me to remind you - that is not even close to exegesis.

I gave you the details pointing to John's context for what he means when he references "Walking and Christ walked" and "Keeping His commandments".

In response to your suggestion that we just "pretend" like 1John 2 only talks about repentance I brought out the following inconvenient details found in the text itself.

You simply dumped the entire line of Bible study at that point and settled for whining and complaining - and empty accusations piled on top of each other.

Let me know when/if you have any interest at all in doing solid Bible study into the 1John 2 text that you are so dead set on ignoring.



:godisgood:

in Christ,

Bob

 

You then proposed what you called a hypothetical "I don't care what God says - I will do what I want anyway" scenario (something Catholics typically do NOT do in their worship using images and something that most people here do not claim to do) -- and I responded

I gave this response to the hypothetical scenario

Since you had "nowhere to go" with that Gal 5 point on the fruits of the Spirit - you have been careful to try and sweep it under the rug, and to settle for complaining that I am contrasting the hypothetical open rebellion against God with the Gal 5 fruits of the Spirit.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

I then provide examples of Christians who though they can clearly "read" the Ten Commandments - still choose to worship with images "anyway".

I point out that your "yes but I see myself in open rebellion" aspect in your hypothetical scenario - does not fit the Catholic case.

As I stated in the previous thread - I doubt that your case is as dire as you like to paint it.

And as I stated above - the Catholic Christians "Can READ the 2nd commandment" - but they typically do not declare of themselves "I am in open rebellion against the commandment -- I hope God likes that".

Here it is, "Those who see what God's word says and choose not to obey."

As I said - that is not the fruit of the Spirit listed in Gal 5 and it is not the "If you Love Me KEEP My Commandments" position of Christ in John 14 and in John 15:14.

I doubt that your case is as dire as you like to pretend.

in Christ,

Bob

 

So again - your argument seems to be going nowhere given that you agree that Paul himself is stressing the point for saved saints in 1Cor 7:19 "But what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God".

What is your solution?

Quote:

That is not even remotely a Bible position on anything.

I am asking you to show us the Bible method you are using to declare that "all the law and the prophets" (scripture) that rest on the foundation of the Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 commandents are destroyed by the very thing serving as their foundation.

The fact that I don't eat rat sandwiches is not even remotely a "Bible method" for you to use in explaining your views.

Why leap off into such nonsense?

Again you show how little you know about that subject - or what I do -even though I have told you three times.

No matter - because once again it does nothing to "explain" your views.

In Matt 22 Christ said "ALL the Law on the Prophets" were depending on the Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 law of love.

Then we get yet another innexplicable response in your post.

You seem to be stuck in a "no Bible answer" mode.

Christ in Matt 22 is speaking before the cross - and by every measure God's Word is VALID while Christ is speaking in Matt 22.

Christ said ALL the Law and the prophets rest on the foundation of the Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 law.

Guess what books those laws are found in ?

Deut and Leviticus turn out to be the very books you are trying so hard to get deleted.

These books are being upheld by Christ as authorotative scripture.

Worse yet for your view - the Matt 22 teaching is being reported by Matthew decades AFTER the resurrection - STILL the valid teaching for NT saints!

Hint. NO TEXT says "The Law of God is abolished".

NO TEXt says "The Commandments of God are abolished".

NO TEXT says "the Law of God is nailed to the Cross".

But we DO have Paul saying "What MATTERS IS KEEPING the Commandments of God".

And we have John saying in Rev 12 and in Rev 14 of NT saints they "keep the Commandments of God".

IF the LAW of Gal 5 includes "The Word of God" as given in scripture - including as you say above the Laws against eating rats - and if that law is showing the lost person - (as you seem to say above ) their need of a Savior because they are found to be violators of God's Law

Then you just shot down your own argument because in Romans 6 Paul affirms that we are to OBEY that law that defines sin INSTEAD of simply "engaging in more sin".

Adventists have a great number of missionaries there as it turns out.

No eating rats and cats for our missionaries though - because for them - the Word of God has value even in that area of the World.

Turns out - our missionaries do not have to become prostitutes to evangelize them and do not have to become murderers to evangelize in prison ministries -- and do not have to eat rats to show people that do it rats - that there is a better healthier way of life.

And that method is working very well - to this very day.

In fact we have a great number of people in Asia turning to light and away from eating cats and rats and away from the worship of false gods. We need not worship their gods "to win them over" - as you seem to suggest in your bending of 1Cor 9.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Most Catholics I have talked with also claim that they have read the 2nd commandment forbiding the use of images in worship.

Shall I keep bringing this point up until you see that your argument needs more work.

I am not here to tell you how to read scripture. The Holy Spirit does that - not me.

I point to the scriptures - I explain valid methods of Bible study - I leave it to each person and their relationship to God to determine if they are open to be convicted of "sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16.

That is the work of the Holy Spirit. Not me.

in Christ,

Bob